Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:10:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Deleuzian Repetition, the Eternal Return


--0-1376135885-1008839425=:21801


 Bobo--
If you're going to quote text to me please give me an extended exegeges on what you think the text is saying.  I'm not interested in the fact *THAT* Deleuze or Deleuze and Guattari said something-- I'm aware that they said this or that --I'm interested in *WHAT* they said or the meaning and arguments that can be attributed to these claims and whether or not they are coherent and endorsable.  In other words, throw out the text and begin to think through it.  As far as I can tell your response meets neither the hermeneutic nor argumentative criteria for such a response.
Tired and frustrated of Deleuzian schizo-scholastics,
Paul
  I Am Bobo <boboii-AT-hotmail.com> wrote: 
hi paul,

><>desexualised metaphysical surface.>>
>
>I'm not quite sure what you mean here, unless by "re-investment" you're 
>talking about some sort of feedback process wherein the results of an 
>operation pertain to sexual energy are fed back into the system as inputs 
>that can produce new results through their iterations



no no, not a feedback loop...let's go to the text, because deleuze says it 
himself: "for if it is true that the phantasm is not content with 
oscillating between the extreme of alimentary depth and the outer extreme 
represented by the metaphysical surface, if it strives to project onto this 
metaphysical surface the event corresponding to nourishment, how would it 
not *also* release the events of sexuality? how would it not release them, 
in a very particular manner? as we have seen, the phantasm does not 
eternally recommence its instrinsic movement of desexualization without 
turning back on its extrinsic sexual beginning. this paradox has no 
equivalent in the other instances of projection on the metaphysical surface: 
a desexualized energy invests or reinvests an object of sexual interest as 
such and is thereby re-sexualized in a new way" (LS 242-243). this 
"mechanism of perversion" is crucial; the for-itself of difference, it is 
repetition: "the second synthesis of time points beyond itself in the 
direction of a third which denounces the illusion of the in-itself as still 
a correlate of representation" (DR 88). the eternal return *is* repetition: 
bottom-up, the pure future rising from the the depths which reinvest the 
(non)-being of a metaphysical dy/dx. "repetition is a condition of action 
before it is a concept of reflection. ... a universal ungrounding which 
turns upon itself and causes only the yet-to-come to return" (DR 90, 91).



>The full quote is "The repetition of a work of art is like a singularity 
>without concept, and it is not by chance that a poem must be learned by 
>heart. The head is the organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous 
>organ of repetition" (DR 1-2). It seems to me that Deleuze is referring to 
>something quite different than chakras and such.



i would disagree. deleuze makes clear reference to an amorous *organ*; this 
isn't metaphorical. it should be read in the same way as one would read 
deleuze's account of the anus, the digestive tract, surfaces, the battle 
between the mouth and the brain, the cerebral crack, the face, the one-eyed 
god or the one-armed god, penises, etc. this is materialist philosophy. 
when deleuzian philosophy is applied to the body, repetition is placed 
directly in the area of the heart. the phantasm is not content with 
oscillating between the intestines and the brain. the battle between the 
mouth and the brain has a resolution at the very point where language is 
made possible -- and i ask you, from where in the body does the voice come 
from? (answer: the chest) i'm not going from that particular quote alone; 
this stuff needs to be practiced, machined. i just find it *extremely* 
revealing that deleuze would say something like that, that the heart is the 
very organ of repetition. play with that, see where it goes.




><< the heart "makes the energy of
>sexuality pass into the pure asexual" (LS 248); like masturbating while
>reading (or better yet, singing) poetry.>>
>
>Wouldn't this pertain more to sublimation than actually masturbating while 
>reading? Your analogy seems to be a disanalogy.


first of all, it isn't an analogy, it is a material scenario that needs to 
be practiced. this really must be tried in order to be understood.
second, no this is not sublimation, as i hope is made clear by the 
explanation of sexual reinvestment above. the difference between the two is 
similar to the difference between difference in-itself and repetition 
for-itself.
third, this isn't my 'analogy', it is deleuze's own: "it is necessary to 
imagine someone, one-third stoic, one-third zen, and one-third carroll: with 
one hand, he masturbates in an excessive gesture, with the other, he writes 
in the sand the magic words of the pure event open to the univocal ... he 
makes the energy of sexuality pass into the pure asexual, without, however, 
ceasing to ask 'what is a little girl?'" (LS 248). the funny thing about 
this practice is that, in honest truth, only the overman can do this 
successfully, without going limp; it is the overman who affirms, not 
speculatively but with full vital action, repetition and the eternal return. 
the question "what is a little girl?", is indeed the expression par 
excellence of the pure future (third synthesis of time), in that sense is 
produced as something new, unknown, yet-to-come, even as its eternal truth 
is repeated in the sexual object. repetition hides and clothes the asexual 
event in the sexual object, thereby producing it anew.



:)bobo

*points to a piece of food*








_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctionsfor all of your holiday gifts!
--0-1376135885-1008839425=:21801

HTML VERSION:

 Bobo--

If you're going to quote text to me please give me an extended exegeges on what you think the text is saying.  I'm not interested in the fact *THAT* Deleuze or Deleuze and Guattari said something-- I'm aware that they said this or that --I'm interested in *WHAT* they said or the meaning and arguments that can be attributed to these claims and whether or not they are coherent and endorsable.  In other words, throw out the text and begin to think through it.  As far as I can tell your response meets neither the hermeneutic nor argumentative criteria for such a response.

Tired and frustrated of Deleuzian schizo-scholastics,

Paul

  I Am Bobo <boboii-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:

hi paul,

><>desexualised metaphysical surface.>>
>
>I'm not quite sure what you mean here, unless by "re-investment" you're
>talking about some sort of feedback process wherein the results of an
>operation pertain to sexual energy are fed back into the system as inputs
>that can produce new results through their iterations



no no, not a feedback loop...let's go to the text, because deleuze says it
himself: "for if it is true that the phantasm is not content with
oscillating between the extreme of alimentary depth and the outer extreme
represented by the metaphysical surface, if it strives to project onto this
metaphysical surface the event corresponding to nourishment, how would it
not *also* release the events of sexuality? how would it not release them,
in a very particular manner? as we have seen, the phantasm does not
eternally recommence its instrinsic movement of desexualization without
turning back on its extrinsic sexual beginning. this paradox has no
equivalent in the other instances of projection on the metaphysical surface:
a desexualized energy invests or reinvests an object of sexual interest as
such and is thereby re-sexualized in a new way" (LS 242-243). this
"mechanism of perversion" is crucial; the for-itself of difference, it is
repetition: "the second synthesis of time points beyond itself in the
direction of a third which denounces the illusion of the in-itself as still
a correlate of representation" (DR 88). the eternal return *is* repetition:
bottom-up, the pure future rising from the the depths which reinvest the
(non)-being of a metaphysical dy/dx. "repetition is a condition of action
before it is a concept of reflection. ... a universal ungrounding which
turns upon itself and causes only the yet-to-come to return" (DR 90, 91).



>The full quote is "The repetition of a work of art is like a singularity
>without concept, and it is not by chance that a poem must be learned by
>heart. The head is the organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous
>organ of repetition" (DR 1-2). It seems to me that Deleuze is referring to
>something quite different than chakras and such.



i would disagree. deleuze makes clear reference to an amorous *organ*; this
isn't metaphorical. it should be read in the same way as one would read
deleuze's account of the anus, the digestive tract, surfaces, the battle
between the mouth and the brain, the cerebral crack, the face, the one-eyed
god or the one-armed god, penises, etc. this is materialist philosophy.
when deleuzian philosophy is applied to the body, repetition is placed
directly in the area of the heart. the phantasm is not content with
oscillating between the intestines and the brain. the battle between the
mouth and the brain has a resolution at the very point where language is
made possible -- and i ask you, from where in the body does the voice come
from? (answer: the chest) i'm not going from that particular quote alone;
this stuff needs to be practiced, machined. i just find it *extremely*
revealing that deleuze would say something like that, that the heart is the
very organ of repetition. play with that, see where it goes.




><< the heart "makes the energy of
>sexuality pass into the pure asexual" (LS 248); like masturbating while
>reading (or better yet, singing) poetry.>>
>
>Wouldn't this pertain more to sublimation than actually masturbating while
>reading? Your analogy seems to be a disanalogy.


first of all, it isn't an analogy, it is a material scenario that needs to
be practiced. this really must be tried in order to be understood.
second, no this is not sublimation, as i hope is made clear by the
explanation of sexual reinvestment above. the difference between the two is
similar to the difference between difference in-itself and repetition
for-itself.
third, this isn't my 'analogy', it is deleuze's own: "it is necessary to
imagine someone, one-third stoic, one-third zen, and one-third carroll: with
one hand, he masturbates in an excessive gesture, with the other, he writes
in the sand the magic words of the pure event open to the univocal ... he
makes the energy of sexuality pass into the pure asexual, without, however,
ceasing to ask 'what is a little girl?'" (LS 248). the funny thing about
this practice is that, in honest truth, only the overman can do this
successfully, without going limp; it is the overman who affirms, not
speculatively but with full vital action, repetition and the eternal return.
the question "what is a little girl?", is indeed the expression par
excellence of the pure future (third synthesis of time), in that sense is
produced as something new, unknown, yet-to-come, even as its eternal truth
is repeated in the sexual object. repetition hides and clothes the asexual
event in the sexual object, thereby producing it anew.



:)bobo

*points to a piece of food*








_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com